Texas lawmaker wants to outlaw gun ban if it


PDA






nathan
January 12, 2013, 08:32 AM
show its ugly head. As the saying goes, Dont mess with Texas.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Woodlands-lawmaker-wants-federal-weapons-ban-illegal-in-Texas--186577481.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Texas lawmaker wants to outlaw gun ban if it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kayakersteve
January 12, 2013, 08:38 AM
Wyoming is taking a stand as well

breakingcontact
January 12, 2013, 09:09 AM
What is the legality of TX and WY doing this?

nathan
January 12, 2013, 09:22 AM
Lt Gov Dehurst of Texas

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Texas-Lt-Gov-calls-for-gun-training-for-teachers/-/1735978/18099678/-/7oui4l/-/index.html

Wyndage
January 12, 2013, 09:53 AM
What is the legality of TX and WY doing this?
See Printz v. United States (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States)). County sheriffs can ignore Federal gun laws they consider to be unconstitutional.

Nathaniel Firethorn
January 12, 2013, 09:54 AM
There are over 8 million firearm owners in Texas. (http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=43800)

That's four times the size of the entire military.

Texas is just one state.

There are roughly 10 million illegals in the US. They aren't being deported.

Figure it out.

- NF

303tom
January 12, 2013, 10:00 AM
I do applaud TX, WY & such, but unless we all do it, state law does not trump federal law............

KTXdm9
January 12, 2013, 10:08 AM
See Printz v. United States (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States)). County sheriffs can ignore Federal gun laws they consider to be unconstitutional.
Excellent read, thanks for the education.

I'm glad a few states are standing up to take the lead in preventing the feds from trampling our rights. Hopefully others follow suit.

dodo bird
January 12, 2013, 10:15 AM
The feds are ignoring colorado weed laws.

HankB
January 12, 2013, 10:19 AM
Just thinking . . .

What if a state defined all lawful gun owners residing within a state to be members of a state militia? Wouldn't even the most creatively restrictive reading of the 2nd Amendment preclude Federal interference?

JohnnyK
January 12, 2013, 10:20 AM
state laws dont trump fed laws? what about the marijuana laws in states like Ca and Colorado? God bless Tx!

ngnrd
January 12, 2013, 10:41 AM
Just thinking . . .

What if a state defined all lawful gun owners residing within a state to be members of a state militia?...

The Federal definition of militia hasn't kept them from trying to take the guns.

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

xfyrfiter
January 12, 2013, 10:47 AM
I am a gun owner, I have pledged alleigance to the USA many times both as a child and an adult, I am not nor have i ever served as a member of the military, because of my sworn alleigance and my gun ownership does this make a member of the unorganized militia?

ngnrd
January 12, 2013, 11:26 AM
If you are an able-bodied male citizen between the age of 17 and 45, you ARE militia.

You don't have to be a gun owner, and you don't have to swear allegiance. By the Federal definition, you ARE militia.

KMatch
January 12, 2013, 12:05 PM
What happens AFTER 45?? No ex-marines = no ex-militia or kicked to the curb?

Silverado6x6
January 12, 2013, 12:21 PM
Technically in the past when you are over the regular max age you can then be part of what is called "Home Guard".

I remember seeing countless instances in Britain where the more senior members were not regular guard, militia or military except in officers country, instead they were tasked with enforcing such things as rationing, blackout enforcement and instructions to civilians on shelter construction.

Push come to shove I doubt age will play a serious factor, how many senior citizens are still driving at 90? If they want to be part of a militia then by all means allow them to contribute as much as they can comfortably perform.

SouthernBoy
January 12, 2013, 04:47 PM
Just thinking . . .

What if a state defined all lawful gun owners residing within a state to be members of a state militia? Wouldn't even the most creatively restrictive reading of the 2nd Amendment preclude Federal interference?

Better yet, have the county sheriffs deputize mass amounts of citizens. A sheriff can arrest just about anyone. So if the ATF or federal marshals come in to take guns, just arrest them and throw them in jail.

JellyJar
January 12, 2013, 07:05 PM
Well I'll be! I have never heard of Steve Toth but I lived for 20 years in the Woodlands TX.

Good for him!

Couldn't a state pass a law that everyone who has a CCW is something like a Special Reserve Police Officer and therefore exempt from most Federal gun laws? Perhaps?

goon
January 12, 2013, 07:17 PM
I do applaud TX, WY & such, but unless we all do it, state law does not trump federal law............
__________________


You're right. I'm not sure how this would work out in court, but it's still worthwhile for a couple reasons.

1. It tells the Federal government that any enforcement they do will be on their own, paid for with their own money, and without any assistance from the state. That makes it much harder to enforce.

2. It is a way for the people of a state who are tired of being dominated by the will of Chicago, Los Angeles, and NYC to protest laws that don't fit their needs.

3. If enough states do this, perhaps the Federal government can be reined back in and will consider more widely acceptable policies on guns.



I would like to see as many states as possible pass legislation saying something to the effect of:

"No Federal firearms laws beyond those in effect on of October 1, 2004 will be enforced by the state of . In addition, any Federal officer attempting to enforce Federal firearms laws passed after said date may be placed into protective custody by officers of the state and escorted out of the state to decrease the chance of violent conflict with residents of the state."

BobTheTomato
January 12, 2013, 09:11 PM
The process of nullification has worked so far for marijuana. The keys is that most law enforcement is local and the feds rely on them to enforce laws. In this case if they say we will do nothing the feds might give up on enforcing them.

For more interesting reading on the subject look up the tariff of 1832. South Carolina pretty much said it would send anyone to jail and seize their property to reimburse anyone harmed by this. Andrew Jackson wanted to invade them. They ended up backing down on the tariff issue and SC essentially won. Now what one needs to realize is this is back when we had a federal government not a national one. A state would need to be willing to say to the Feds we don't want your money. That is the one mechanism the federal government can use to force states to do these things by taking away cash. That is why all states have a 21 drinking age, if its not 21 you don't get highway funds. So it would take a state willing to go toe to toe with the Feds. It would be epic if they were willing to do it.

rduchateau2954
January 12, 2013, 09:27 PM
“I don't believe in guns, so I believe in ban gun period,” said parent Tina Swangphol.

What? I don't believe in stupid soccer moms, but they still exist.

joeschmoe
January 12, 2013, 09:49 PM
What is the legality of TX and WY doing this?
That and $2 will get you a cup of coffee. It has zero effect on federal law, or federal power to enforce federal law.

The Printz case only refers to forcing local LEO to enforce federal law when they don't want to. So no, they can't make your enforce federal law, but the fed can certaily stop your FFL from selling them, or send the ATF squad after anyone that violates federal law.

joeschmoe
January 12, 2013, 09:53 PM
What happens AFTER 45?? No ex-marines = no ex-militia or kicked to the curb?
Nothing. Congress has no power to limit your 2nd Amendment rights based on age or previous service. They can write codes for how they want to use the Militia when called into actual federal service (which they haven't done for over 100 years), but that doesn't change your rights to stand as ready Militia.

Any armed American is Miltia. (You do need a gun, or you are NOT Militia).

TIMC
January 12, 2013, 10:01 PM
Don't think secession can't happen here. Russia thought they were almighty and look at them now. All those satellite countries now have their own sovereignty, it could happen here too. I know I would be willing to fight for my rights. My belief in the constitution of this great country is also why I would be willing to secede from it to keep those rights so eloquently written into the constitution!

joeschmoe
January 12, 2013, 10:10 PM
Just as easily as a state can say they cedeed, the fed can say your annexed back in. Same day. We are not going through a civil war again.

Talk of cessesion is stupid and disprespectful to all those who died in a very bloody civil war. Just stop it.

Byrd666
January 12, 2013, 10:18 PM
Since Texas is still technically a Republic, I thought I might share this from THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Thank you Rep. Steve Toth and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and without a doubt Gov. Rick Perry for keeping our 2nd Amendment Rights alive

nathan
January 12, 2013, 11:57 PM
I hope Texas legislature makes those moves as quickly once Biden brings his recommendation to Obama by Tuesday. This week will be crucial as to what moves the NRA and many gun owners should do next.

flyskater
January 13, 2013, 12:27 AM
Texas has always been a thorn on the federal government even before they were they're own nation (1836)
When ATF agents raided the Waco (Daividians) on information that the religious sect was stockpiling weapons only to have the ATF retreat with their tails between their legs. Listening to the evidence, it shows how corrupt the federal government was. Based on the court hearing, the ATF activity log was missing, 3 camera tapes that shows evidence was destroyed ATF,

AZ
January 13, 2013, 12:28 AM
The process of nullification has worked so far for marijuana. The keys is that most law enforcement is local and the feds rely on them to enforce laws. In this case if they say we will do nothing the feds might give up on enforcing them.

Except in this case the ATF would have a considerably greater mandate to crack down. The laws in Colorado and Washington have gone unaddressed largely because public sentiment is on their side. Much fewer people are ardently opposed to an AWB than to the War on Drugs, and even then we have seen an increased rate of raids on medicinal marijuana growers over the last four years. It is highly unlikely that any law that passes will fail to be enforced considering the magnitude of the argument. Gun control has become an increasingly centralized debate and the Feds aren't likely to treat insubordination with ambiguity.

Bhi curamach
January 13, 2013, 01:47 AM
Texas can actually split into 6 parts if it wishes to no longer remain a part of the US? I swear I remember reading something about them requiring something like this in order for them to accept general USA statehood.
I'm sure Ive heard Texans mention something similar in the past. I don't often pay proper attention so I cant be positive, but I'm somewhat certain they retain the right to bail and splinter into their original grouping? Yes no?

Queen_of_Thunder
January 13, 2013, 01:53 AM
I would argue that its a States Rights Issue with the Bill of Rights the protection to guard against States overstepping their boundarys.

joeschmoe
January 13, 2013, 04:17 AM
Since Texas is still technically a Republic, I thought I might share this from THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Thank you Rep. Steve Toth and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and without a doubt Gov. Rick Perry for keeping our 2nd Amendment Rights alive
All the states are Republics. From the federal Constitution.

"Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

Dean1818
January 13, 2013, 06:29 AM
God bless Texas !

Its a great place to live

breakingcontact
January 13, 2013, 08:53 AM
Dean...don't tell everyone that!

The rattlesnakes, armadillos and hipsters in Austin are out of control.

Don't move to Texas!

TIMC
January 13, 2013, 11:05 AM
Just as easily as a state can say they cedeed, the fed can say your annexed back in. Same day. We are not going through a civil war again.

Talk of cessesion is stupid and disprespectful to all those who died in a very bloody civil war. Just stop it.

Don't think never my less than courteous friend. It could happen and for my right I would fight! You must not be from Texas or you would understand.

Oh and by the way there was a good reason for that civil war too.

RyeDaddy
January 13, 2013, 12:08 PM
It could happen and for my right I would fight! You must not be from Texas or you would understand.

Seconded.

joeschmoe
January 13, 2013, 05:52 PM
How about the Father of Texas?

Sam Houston, President of the Republic of Texas;

"I will endeavor to say a few words in behalf of the Union, and the necessity of union to preserve it, which I trust will not fall unheeded. The condition of the country is such, the dangers which beset it are so numerous, the foes of the Union so implacable and energetic, that no risk should be heeded by him who has a voice to raise in its behalf; and so long as I have strength to stand, I will peril even health in its cause.

I had felt an interest in this occasion, on many accounts. It is said a crisis is impending. The clamor of disunion is heard in the land. The safety of the Government is threatened; and it seemed to me that the time had come for a renewal of our vows of fidelity to the Constitution and to interchange, one with the other, sentiments of devotion to the whole country. I begin to feel that the issue really is upon us, which involves the perpetuity of the Government which we have received from our fathers. Were we to fail to pay our tributes to its worth, and to enlist in its defense, we would be unworthy longer to enjoy it.

It has been my misfortune to peril my all for the Union. So indissolubly connected is my life, my history, my hopes, my fortunes, with it, that when it falls, I would ask that with it might close my career, that I might not survive the destruction of the shrine that I had been taught to regard as holy and inviolate, since my boyhood. I have beheld it, the fairest fabric of Government God ever vouchsafed to man, more than a half century. May it never be my fate to stand sadly gazing on its ruins! To be deprived of it, after enjoying it so long, would be a calamity, such as no people yet have endured.

Upwards of forty-seven years ago, I enlisted, a mere boy, to sustain the National flag and in defense of a harassed frontier, now the abode of a dense civilization. Then disunion was never heard of, save a few discordant notes from the Hartford Convention. It was anathematized by every patriot in the land, and the concocters of the scheme were branded as traitors. The peril I then underwent, in common with my fellow-soldiers, in behalf of the Union, would have been in vain, unless the patriotism of the nation had arisen against these disturbers of the public peace. With what heart could these gallant men again volunteer in defense of the Union, unless the Union could withstand the shock of treason and overturn the traitors? It did this; and when again, in 1836, I volunteered to aid in transplanting American liberty to this soil, it was with the belief that the Constitution and the Union were to be perpetual bless*ings to the human race,—that the success of the experiment of our fathers was beyond dispute, and that whether under the banner of the Lone Star or that many-starred banner of the Union, I could point to the land of Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson, as the land blest beyond all other lands, where freedom would be eternal and Union un*broken. It concerns me deeply, as it does every one here, that these bright anticipations should be realized; and that it should be continued not only the proudest nationality the world has ever produced, but the freest and the most perfect. I have seen it extend from the wilds of Tennessee, then a wilderness, across the Missis*sippi, achieve the annexation of Texas, scaling the Rocky Mountains in its onward march, sweeping the valleys of California, and laving its pioneer foot*steps in the waves of the Pacific. I have seen this mighty progress, and it still re*mains free and independent. Power, wealth, expansion, victory, have followed in its path, and yet the aegis of the Union has been broad enough to en*compass all. Is not this worth perpetuating? Will you exchange this for all the hazards, the anarchy and carnage of civil war? Do you believe that it will be dissevered and no shock felt in society? You are asked to plunge into a revolution; but are you told how to get out of it? Not so; but it is to be a leap in the dark—a leap into an abyss, whose horrors would even fright the mad spirits of disunion who tempt you on.

Our forefathers saw the danger to which freedom would be subjected, from the helpless condition of disunited States; and, to “form a more perfect Union,” they established this Government. They saw the effect of foreign influence on rival States, the effect of dissensions at home, and to strengthen all and perpetuate all, to bind all together, yet leave all free, they gave us the Constitution and the Union. Where are the evidences that their patriotic labor was in vain? Have we not emerged from an infant’s to a giant’s strength? Have not empires been added to our domain, and States been created? All the blessings which they promised their posterity have been vouchsafed; and millions now enjoy them, who without this Union would to-day be oppressed and down-trodden in far-off foreign lands!

What is there that is free that we have not? Are our rights invaded and no Government ready to protect them? No! Are our institutions wrested from us and others foreign to our taste forced upon us? No! Is the right of free speech, a free press, or free suffrage taken from us? No! Has our property been taken from us and the Government failed to interpose when called upon? No, none of these! The rights of the States and the rights of individuals are still maintained. We have yet the Constitution, we have yet a judiciary, which has never been appealed to in vain—we have yet just laws and officers to administer them; and an army and navy, ready to maintain any and every constitutional right of the citizen. Whence then this clamor about disunion? Whence this cry of protection to property or disunion, when even the very loudest in the cry, declared under their Senatorial oaths, but a few months since, that no protection was necessary? Are we to sell reality for a phantom?

There is no longer a holy ground upon which the footsteps of the demagogue may not fall. One by one the sacred things placed by patriotic hands upon the altar of our liberties, have been torn down. The Declaration of our Independence is jeered at. The farewell counsels of Washington are derided. The charm of those historic names which make glorious our past has been broken, and now the Union is no longer held sacred, but made secondary to the success of party and the adoption of abstractions. We hear of secession—“peaceable secession.” We are to believe that this people, whose progressive civilization has known no obstacles, but has already driven back one race and is fast Americanizing another, who have conquered armies and navies,—whose career has been onward and never has receded, be the step right or wrong, is at last quietly and calmly to be denationalized, to be rent into fragments, sanctioned by the Constitution, and there not only be none of the incidents of revolution, but amid peace and happiness we are to have freedom from abolition clamor, security to the institution of slavery, and a career of glory under a Southern Confederacy, which we can never attain in our present condition! When we deny the right of a State to secede, we are pointed to the resolves of chivalric South Carolina and other States; and are told, “Let them go out and you can not whip them back.” My friends, there will be no necessity of whipping them back. They will soon whip themselves, and will not be worth whipping back. Deprived of the protection of the Union, of the aegis of the Constitution, they would soon dwindle into petty States, to be again rent in twain by dissensions or through the ambition of selfish chieftains, and would become a prey to foreign powers."

"Talk of frightening the North into measures by threats of dissolving the Union! It is child’s play and folly. It is all the Black Republican leaders want. American blood, North nor South, has not yet become so ignoble as to be chilled by threats. Strife begets strife, threat begets threat, and taunt begets taunt, and these disunionists know it. American blood brooks no such restraints as these men would put upon it. I would blush with shame for America, if I could believe that one vast portion of my countrymen had sunk so low that childish threats would intimidate them."

“But if, through division in the ranks of those opposed to Mr. Lincoln, he should be elected, we have no excuse for dissolving the Union.”


“The Union is worth more than Mr. Lincoln, and if the battle is to be fought for the Constitution, let us fight it in the Union and for the sake of the Union.”


“Let past differences be forgotten in the determination to unite against sectionalism.”


“Whenever an encroachment is made upon our constitutional rights, I am ready to peril my life to re*sist it; but let us first use constitutional means.”


“Let the people say to these abolition agitators of the North, and to the disunion agitators of the South, ‘You can not dissolve this Union. We will put you both down; but we will not let the Union go!’”

TIMC
January 13, 2013, 06:23 PM
How about the Father of Texas?

He said it right here in your own post.

“Whenever an encroachment is made upon our constitutional rights, I am ready to peril my life to re*sist it; but let us first use constitutional means.”

And if that doesn't work? Then civil uprising is the only means left. Again, don't think it can't happen! There are millions of patriots in this country willing to stand and defend our constitution against foreign and DOMESTIC threats.

joeschmoe
January 13, 2013, 06:30 PM
but let us first use constitutional means

Just at the suggestion of legislation, that has no hope of passage or surviving SCOTUS challenge, you're already threatening seccesion?
You need to read Houstons speech again.

"Talk of frightening the North into measures by threats of dissolving the Union! It is child’s play and folly. It is all the Black Republican leaders want. American blood, North nor South, has not yet become so ignoble as to be chilled by threats. Strife begets strife, threat begets threat, and taunt begets taunt, and these disunionists know it. American blood brooks no such restraints as these men would put upon it. I would blush with shame for America, if I could believe that one vast portion of my countrymen had sunk so low that childish threats would intimidate them."

TIMC
January 13, 2013, 07:48 PM
No you need to re-read my post. I never threatened it. I believe I said quite clearly "Don't think it can't happen".

RetiredUSNChief
January 13, 2013, 09:21 PM
Since Texas is still technically a Republic, I thought I might share this from THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Thank you Rep. Steve Toth and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and without a doubt Gov. Rick Perry for keeping our 2nd Amendment Rights alive

Oh, dear...you and one of my brothers...

As another member so kindly pointed out, ALL states have a republican form of government, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

However, since the (seemingly) obvious inference is that you mean "Republic of Texas", might I quote from the preamble from the Texas Constitution:

"Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution."

:neener:

Man, I can hardly wait until the next time I meet up with my brother and he starts in on Texas again! Last time it was the old "Texas is the only state in the union which can fly the state flag on the same level as the United State flag" argument. Oh, the glee I had with THAT one!

:evil::evil:


Seriously, on the OP topic...while there is little doubt that any real conflict between Texas and the federal government (such as arrests of federal agents) will actually hold any legal water, the political statement that this makes is very important.

slamfirev10
January 13, 2013, 09:24 PM
fine thread and posts (for the most part)

again, don't mess with texas

If you enjoyed reading about "Texas lawmaker wants to outlaw gun ban if it" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!